Seeing the Round Corners

February 18, 2019


News release stating:  Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) stated:  “After Mr. McCabe’s 60 Minutes interview, it is imperative that he, and others, come before the Senate Judiciary Committee to fully explain how and why a FISA warrant was issued against Carter Page and answer questions about what appears to be, now more than ever, bias against President Trump.”
In its statement, the Justice Department denied several of McCabe’s claims as “inaccurate and factually incorrect.” “The Deputy Attorney General never authorized any recording that Mr. McCabe references,” according to NBC news. “As the Deputy Attorney General previously has stated, based on his personal dealings with the President, there is no basis to invoke the 25th Amendment, nor was the DAG in a position to consider invoking the 25th Amendment.”
The presumption of innocence is a “principle that requires the government to prove the guilt of a criminal defendant and relieves the defendant of any burden to prove his or her innocence.” 
Citizens of America have always felt safe from conviction of a crime until proven guilty with most believing that protection is set forth in the Constitution of the United States. Just suppose it is not!  Don’t “just suppose,” because it is not!! The principle “innocent until proven guilty” is not articulated in the Constitution of the United States.
The ongoing Russian investigation, the firing of former FBI Director James Comey, and the obsession of Democrats to remove President Trump from office have resulted in disclosures of tactics that are unfathomable to us ordinary citizens (in this writer’s opinion) – all because Hillary Clinton was defeated and is not President of the United States.
Until Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on the alleged Russian meddling is completed and released (or not)), the massive opinions and charges by the “players” in this saga are based on speculation, hopes and wishes for what Mueller has learned, and downright lies. Representative Adam Schiff (D-Calif) speaks to any microphone put in his face as though he knows the findings in minute detail. If he does, he should be indicted and removed from office.
The remainder of today’s column is based on news releases from various news outlets deemed “reasonably” reliable by this writer. The media bias shown since the final returns of the 2016 election has left a black mark on an entity that is supposed to be the forefront of impartiality, but is one that has ramped up fact checking to a new height – “hyper-precision fact-checking.” as one reporter called it.
The presumption of innocence seems to be unheard of by the Democrats out to get President Trump. The premise of “innocent until proven guilty” is not articulated in the Constitution of the United States nor in the Declaration of Independence nor in the Bill of Rights! That premise is an idea that has “evolved” over the decades from, far too often, people intent or obsessed with explaining what the founding fathers meant in drafting the Constitution with the wording as they did. In criminal law, “presumption of innocence” is one from ancient times, and came into American law through a Supreme Court decision of 1894, Coffin vs. U. S.
In criminal law, one of the requirements that the government must prove in charges against a defendant is “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” and the presumption of innocence is within that theory, but “presumption of innocence” is not articulated in the U. S. Constitution.
Representative Devin Nunes (R-Calif) was chairman of the U. S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence until January 3, 2019.  Representative Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) is now chairman. Nunes made these statements about Andrew McCabe, former acting director of the FBI, who was fired from the FBI job by then Attorney General Jeff Sessions:

  • Actions taken by the FBI with the probe into Russia and President Donald Trump were “absurd” and showed a “counterintelligence investigation” had been launched based on “dirt and research” from an opposing political party.
  • McCabe says in a new interview that he launched the probe into Russia and President Donald Trump because of fears the case would “vanish.”
  • He (McCabe) was relying on Democrat paid-for-dirt that came from Russians to investigate another candidate in (another) political party for doing what?; supposedly colluding with Russians, it is absolutely absurd.
  • Suspicious claims are suspicious when the person involved is about to release a book which McCabe has just done.
  • The FBI had been “opening up a counterintelligence investigation into a political party based on dirt and research from another political party which should never be done.”
  • “Every American should be outraged by this.” “This has been buried by the mainstream media for years. It is absolutely absurd. Now people are hawking books on the thing.”

   Andrew McCabe, former FBI Deputy Director, stated his reasons for ordering obstruction of justice and counter intelligence investigations shortly after James Comey was fired by President Trump:

  • I was very concerned that I would be able to put the Russia case on an absolutely solid ground, in an indelible fashion.
  • That were I removed quickly, or reassigned or fired, that the case could not be closed or vanish in the night without a trace.
  • I wanted to make sure our case was on solid ground and if somebody came in behind me and closed it and tried to walk away from it, they would not be able to do it without creating a record of why they made that decision.
  • Scott Pelley of CBS News questioned McCabe about a meeting at the Justice Department at which it was discussed whether the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet could be brought together to remove the president of the United States under the 25th  Amendment. These were the eight days from Comey’s firing to  when Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel. And the highest levels of American law enforcement were trying to figure out what to do with the president.”

   The actions of McCabe and the statements of Schiff (in various on-air interviews) have been made in such a way as to say they already know what the Mueller report will say, and President Trump should be removed from office.
Questions brought to mind:

  • Is the Gang of 3 (Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and Adam Schiff) entitled to remove the legally and lawfully elected President of the United States because their Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, lost the election?
  • Has our legal system become so lame that it can be railroaded, with the help of the media, into abuse of the President of the United States, a president who was lawfully and legally elected?
  • How can the American people now trust the U. S. Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation?

The reader's comments or questions are always welcome. E-mail me at